Google+ Followers

الخميس، 2 أبريل 2015

Iraq snapshot Tuesday, March 31, 2015.

Iraq snapshot Tuesday, March 31, 2015.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Tikrit is liberated!, oops not so fast, Barack Obama spent a lot of time courting Iran but there appears to be no wedding announcement, and much more.Today, Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi Tweeted:

PM Al-Abadi announces the liberation of Tikrit and congratulates Iraqi security forces and popular volunteers on the historic milestone

207 retweets145 favorites

Others rushed to join in the chorus of hosannahs. Rahshan Saglam, (Press TV) declared, "Iraqi Federal police forces and the popular mobilization have liberated the presidential palaces and raised the Iraqi flag in the Tikrit Mosque, the central prison and the University of Tikrit." AFP added, "The operation to retake the hometown of former president Saddam Hussein began on March 2 and had looked bogged down before Iraqi forces made rapid advances in the past 48 hours." And Khalid Al-Ansary and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) called it the country's "biggest military victory over Islamic State."

But . . .

ARR notes that after al-Abadi made his announcement, "local commander Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi said that soldiers were still about 300 yards from the city centre." And the New York Times' Rod Norland, Falih Hassan and Omar Al-Jowoshy (as well as an unnamed journalist in Tikrit) report:In Tikrit, however, an Iraqi general, who asked not to be named so as to avoid openly contradicting the prime minister, said that reports of Tikrit’s fall were at best premature.“God willing, it will fall,” he said.Other military officers and a civilian official reached in Tikrit said it was true that Iraqi forces had advanced into the center of the city and had entered government buildings and parts of the Republican Palace. But they said that parts of the palace remained in Islamic State hands and that fighting was continuing.

And the Times team notes such claims of 'liberation' also took place last June and point to their June 29th article documenting that. Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al Abadi announced that the city’s western and southern portions had been liberated, but military commanders involved in the operation warned that at least three neighborhoods and a palace complex defended by hundreds of Islamic State fighters remained out of government hands.

It's not unlikely that the operation could wrap up soon.Remember the small number of militia members who walked out after the US government ordered US air strikes last week? They rushed back in this week.

Why?

Because they felt the operation was about to wrap up and that the Americans would grab the credit for its accomplishments (however small or large the accomplishments might be).

Loveday Morris (Washington Post) notes, "Militia leaders refused to admit Tuesday that they were still working under American air cover. One coalition strike occurred overnight as the pro-government forces advanced, according to Col. Wayne Marotto, a spokesman for the coalition operation."

They weren't the only ones failing to note the air strikes.

In his public remarks, Haider al-Abadi thanked the Iraqi security forces as well as the militias.

He pointedly did not think the US pilots -- this despite his begging for this help and assistance.

Regardless of what happens next, the operation is a failure and will always remain one.

There are two main reasons why it is a failure.

1) It took way too long.

Tikrit was chosen to rally the spirit among the Iraqi forces.

It was felt that attacking in Saddam Hussein's hometown would goad the forces into stronger fighting and give them a target worth winning.

While it has led to many excesses -- which include War Crimes that people seem more comfortable calling "human rights abuses" -- it didn't lead to a quick and decisive victory.

Tikrit is still not completely controlled by Baghdad's fighters and it's been a month. (Some like to say it started March 2nd. It was still March first on the Pacific Coast.)

As it now stands, the takeaway is that the mission was going nowhere until US war planes got involved. Fair or not, that is the takeaway.

So the operation that was supposed to rally and provide hope ended up demonstrating the vast limitations of the forces.

2) Haider lied.

It's never a good idea for a leader to lie to the people.

We can dissect Plato's notions of the cave and the noble lie and blah blah blah.

But the reality is that Haider has now said Tikrit is liberated and it's not.

It may yet be.

But he said it before it happened.

He now looks rather foolish.

He can always point to Barack Obama who looks even more foolish.

"Without preconditions," then-US Senator Barack insisted of his planned talks with Iran should he be elected US president.

Apparently, he also meant to say "without time limitations."

He has wasted years on negotiations with Iran.

And, yes "wasted" is the term.

The deadline for his hoped for deal -- details to come, as always, after a deal had been negotiated -- came and went.

And still the US is engaged in negotiations.

This is stupidity beyond belief and why so many are so bothered by Barack.

As we noted March 22nd:Democratic leadership in the Senate has made clear to Barack that, if there's a deal to make with Iran, he needs to make it already.Not only has his dilly-dallying on a treaty harmed Iraq, it's also harming the image of the United States which is beginning to appear as indecisive as Barack himself. (That was the point Harry Reid was conveying to the White House last week.)

The United States looks very weak now.

Today was the deadline and the deadline passed but negotiations continued.

The power of no.

You have to be willing to walk away.

If you're not willing to walk away, they own you.

In the entertainment industry, we know our "no" is as powerful as our "yes."

And we know we need to be prepared to say "no."

Debra Winger's made a career out of saying "no" better than anyone. Bill Murray has a film career -- something none of his SNL peers can't claim -- because he has always understood the power of "no."

You have to be willing to walk away.

And that may mean you lose out on something but it also means, in the next negotiation, people know you're not going to cave.

There was never any reason to waste so much time on one deal (with anyone, leave Iran out of it for now).

There was no reason when issues still remained unresolved to bring Barack into publicly.

You keep the president out of the negotiations publicly until the deal is set and that's when he or she swoops in to look like the gifted and talented.

Instead it looks like yet another failure by Team Barack -- like the failed bid to get the Olympics in Chicago, remember that?

When the time ran out, the US should have walked away from the table.

That wouldn't mean an end to talks.

24 hours later, the talks could be restarted for whatever reason.

But you make the point that you will walk away.

And if you fail to make that point, no one takes you seriously.

Nor should they.

In addition, by staying in negotiations after the deadline passed, the US showed their hand. There's no more bluffing. Clearly the deal is more important to the US than it is to Ian. All future negotiations will be the US government speaking from a position of weakness.

Now in terms of Iran . . .

As Betty noted, the most likely outcome of a deal with Iran was a contract that would be used for war. That is what tends to happen in the last two decades when leaders of foreign countries make concessions to the US government -- see Saddam Hussein (letting the inspectors back in) and Muammar Gaddafi (agreeing to demands of Bully Boy Bush only to be targeted shortly after by Barack).

In terms of Iran and Iraq, the White House has failed.

It has failed to speak up for the Sunni population, to condemn attacks on them, etc.

It's done so to avoid angering the government in Iran.

Iran's led Barack around on all fours by a ring in his nose for the last year.

And the result is that the US remained silent on the abuses of Iraqi forces, the War Crimes.

We noted the horror of a Sunni man being set on fire by Iraqi forces. More recently there was the 11-year-old boy shot dead by Iraqi forces. Those were caught on video.

They stroke and play with the man's beard in a manner that is the behavior of a predator.

They slap him and hit him repeatedly.

This is a civilian. A Sunni civilian, so he doesn't matter to the forces, but the man is a civilian.

And for their amusement, they hit him. Repeatedly.

The same State Dept that condemns this and that action in other countries -- or when carried out by the Islamic State -- has been silent.The consensus among members of Congress has been that the White House didn't (a) want to risk pushing Iraq closer to Iran and (b) didn't want to risk angering Iran (which supplies, trains and supports many of the thugs in Iraq) in the midst of (never-ending) negotiations.Now maybe members of Congress are wrong.

Maybe even without the pursuit of an Iran deal, Barack would have remained silent about the abuses in Iraq?

He certainly stayed silent from 2010 through 2014 (Nouri's second term) until June. This was after the exposure of torture chambers and the Iraqi forces murdering peaceful protesters and so much more. Barack stayed silent throughout all of that.

That silence prompted this.

March 15, 2013, Iraqis in Samarra with a message for the world (photo via Iraqi Spring MC) asked "Obama, If you Cannot Hear Us Can you Not See Us?"

Iraqis were well aware that, while they were targeted, the US government was silent.

So maybe it wasn't fear of angering Iran or upsetting a deal that kept Barack silent.

It is true, however, that the never-ending talks seemed to drain the State Dept of any other diplomatic efforts.

And Iraq needed diplomacy.

What was it Barack said in June?

Oh, right. The answer to Iraq's crises? A political solution, not a military solution, was required.

I have no position on a deal with Iran one way or the other.

I can understand those who leap for joy at the prospect and think it could mean peace (I do wonder where they were throughout the Cold War, but okay). I can understand those like Betty who argue that no one benefits from dealings with the US government (going all the way back to the Native Americans).

So it's not an issue that I'm going to focus on.

And I meant what I said that the US could (and should) end talks immediately and that might prompt a second round (even 24 hours later).

But you do not sit at a table after you've said, "I'm leaving at X."

If you give a deadline, you keep it.

If you can't walk away from the table, then you just lost everything -- including your ability to bluff.

Where is the work on a political solution in Iraq?Haider Al-Abadi also Tweeted the following: